Uploaded July 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Parental rights have long occupied an important place in American law and political thought. While the Supreme Court today generally recognizes parental rights as fundamental, the constitutional foundations of those rights remain the subject of significant debate. Modern doctrine, reflected in cases such as Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Troxel v. Granville, and more recent disputes involving parental authority over children’s education and upbringing, largely rests on substantive due process—a doctrine that itself remains controversial.
This webinar will explore parental rights from their roots in natural law and the political thought of the American Founding through their development in modern constitutional jurisprudence. What did the Founders understand the parent-child relationship to entail, and how did earlier natural-law traditions shape those views? How did parental rights come to be recognized as fundamental within American constitutional law? And looking forward, what is the strongest constitutional foundation for protecting parental rights? Should substantive due process remain the primary vehicle, or are there alternative constitutional grounds that may provide a more secure basis for these protections?
Featuring:
Michael P. Farris, General Counsel, NRB
Prof. Martin Guggenheim, Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of Clinical Law Emeritus, New York University School of Law
Prof. Melissa Moschella, Professor of the Practice, Philosophy, McGrath Institute for Church Life, University of Notre Dame
Anthony Sanders, Director, Center for Judicial Engagement, Institute for Justice
(Moderator) Gene C. Schaerr, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Parental rights have long occupied an important place in American law and political thought. While the Supreme Court today generally recognizes parental rights as fundamental, the constitutional foundations of those rights remain the subject of significant debate. Modern doctrine, reflected in cases such as Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Troxel v. Granville, and more recent disputes involving parental authority over children’s education and upbringing, largely rests on substantive due process—a doctrine that itself remains controversial.
This webinar will explore parental rights from their roots in natural law and the political thought of the American Founding through their development in modern constitutional jurisprudence. What did the Founders understand the parent-child relationship to entail, and how did earlier natural-law traditions shape those views? How did parental rights come to be recognized as fundamental within American constitutional law? And looking forward, what is the strongest constitutional foundation for protecting parental rights? Should substantive due process remain the primary vehicle, or are there alternative constitutional grounds that may provide a more secure basis for these protections?
Featuring:
Michael P. Farris, General Counsel, NRB
Prof. Martin Guggenheim, Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of Clinical Law Emeritus, New York University School of Law
Prof. Melissa Moschella, Professor of the Practice, Philosophy, McGrath Institute for Church Life, University of Notre Dame
Anthony Sanders, Director, Center for Judicial Engagement, Institute for Justice
(Moderator) Gene C. Schaerr, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
![Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cb27rAonjwU/mqdefault.jpg "Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?
Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?")
![[LIVE] From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dL-iQ8dodEs/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook
In Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) statutory for-cause removal protection violates the separation of powers, overruling Humphreys Executor. The Court reasoned that subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Thus, because the FTC exercises executive power, its Commissioners must be removable by the President at will.
Yet in Trump v. Cook, the Court, 5-4, denied the government’s request to stay an injunction blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The Court held that a president’s asserted “for cause” statutory basis for removing a Federal Reserve governor is judicially reviewable and that Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before removal. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that the statute was enacted against the backdrop of the common law, and that any definition of “cause” in this context must reflect the Federal Reserve’s unique historical status and role.
Join us for a webinar breaking down both decisions, the separate opinions, and what they may mean for presidential removal power, independent agencies, the Federal Reserve, and the future of the administrative state.
Featuring:
• Adam White, Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
• Erin M. Hawley, Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation Chair, Lex Politica; Of Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/from-the-courthouse-steps-trump-v-slaughter-and-trump-v-cook
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
